Using a social perspective to autism, I would appreciate if there were a way to classify someone as autistic without calling it a disorder. Yes, we have difficulties, but from a social perspective, a lot of them come from society being structured to meet the needs of allistics. They get guidance, acceptance, and ultimately privilege of a world that is designed for them, while we have to try to meet their expectations. From this perspective, we’re not disordered, but oppressed/marginalized. How does that make us disordered?

I agree that there are different levels of functioning, and that some individuals might meet criteria for a disorder due to autism spectrum characteristics, so that would be valid. However, many individuals would function quite well in a setting that was designed to raise, educate, and accommodate autistic brains.

Anyone have any insight or ideas on this?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1110 months ago

    Yes, atypical Brian’s or neurodivergence does not necessarily equal disorder. I hated when my ex used to refer to my “disorder”. I found it not representative and even disrespectful to be honest.

    Maybe it’s because we associate disorder with non functioning, when’s it more “life on hard mode in the current social/cultural context”. It also implies there’s something wrong with the individuals rather than recognizing that the environment could also be adjusted to help the individual thrive.

    • angrystego
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      How should the environment be adjusted? Are there any easy steps that would help a lot without inconveniencing others? I’d genuinely love to know.

    • I'm back on my BS 🤪OPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -110 months ago

      Exactly! And I’ve heard from several sources, including a therapist I was seeing, that having a few individuals with autistic traits in a pre-historical group was advantageous to the group as a whole. Two of the benefits I remember were that (1) they were great ambassadors/messengers because both parties trusted them more than NTs and (2) they were more aware of details in local environment to alert the group of important changes that affected everyone. Because of this, these individuals were highly regarded, cared for, and protected.